lol

No, I agree and didn’t phrase it right — Black is trying very hard but it’s just wrong and it’s definitely on Jackson for not figuring this out. I remember his delivery of “twas beauty killed the beast” in particular as embarrassing and feeling bad he was hung out to dry like that. I think Black has the right energy…

Those are two very different-shaped casting problems you’re mentioning. One is a genuine casting problem. People were trying really hard to make Brody a leading man at the time, with blatant disregard to the fact that Brody’s screen presence, skills, and look don’t lend themselves to mainstream lead roles. He’s good…

But that’s kind of the issue, isn’t it? Fellowship’s extended edition gave us stuff that book fans would miss and that non-fans wouldn’t: more singing, more Bilbo’s birthday, more hanging out in Lothlorien dealing with Gandalf’s death, but nothing that’s of huge consequence to the story. By Return, we’re getting bonus…

But watching the film, I always felt like I was watching tropes and archetypes, not people.

My main gripe has always been with the destruction of Sauron. I thought Tolkien's description was perfectly cinematic; a massive cloud in the shape of Sauron appears and reaches out towards the army of the west and is blown away by the wind.  I thought the eye looking all panicked as everything collapses around it…

I still maintain and will always maintain that Sean Astin absolutely, positively, without question should have gotten a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this movie.

The other big issue with King Kong -- as people have noted here, LOTR is incredibly well-cast, but while Watts is outstanding in Kong Jack Black is out of place and Brody is just a dud. Kong’s bloat is already a problem, filling the space with weak performances doesn’t help.

Even though I grew up with the prequels, Lord of the Rings is still my generation’s Star Wars. The only difference was that a lot of us knew the story going in and the level of hype and expectation, especially for Return of the King, was simply through the roof. And with the exception of the last Avengers movie I…

That brings up my biggest beef with the trilogy:

“Why is this movie so long? Doesn’t Peter Jackson know about elevenses? Luncheon? Tea? Dinner? Supper? Second tea? Midnight snack?”

There’s no reason for the Hobbit to be split into multiple films at all.

You should change your name to coolhobbitguy if you can’t do without food for 3 hours.

But this is it - I don’t think the structural level had been sorted when they had to go into production. I’m not saying it would have brought the films up to LOTR level but I think that telling the story of The Hobbit but fleshing it out with Gandalf’s White Council stuff isn’t a bad idea. But going into it not fully…

“It’s made of pixels, make it bigger”

I’m sure more time would have made the films better than they were but I can’t see how anyone could save the story given the number of terrible decisions at the structural level, and most of that seems to have been driven by the need to fill out three long movies.

Rivendell has the best casino in Middle-Earth.

To be fair to Jackson, he knew The Hobbit should not try to replicate LoTR’s run time. It would have been doable as two 2-hour light adventure films, but the studio was determined to make another LoTR trilogy in both length and tone. Jackson only caved after several years of studio pressure and unholy financial…

Obviously not this movie but Boromirr realizing his mistakes, taking multiple arrows, and still killing as many orcs as possible to try and save the hobbits remains a standout scene. Even among the many Sean Bean death scenes.